False Solutions: Dangerous Distractions at COP29
A Collective Reflection

BAKU, 11–22 November 2024 – The outcome of COP29 turns out to be a bad deal with a critical question on the presidential process of adoption. 

The deal is a complete disappointment as even $300 billion out of the demanded $1.3 trillion will come in the form of grants and low-interest loans from developed countries. This outcome has led groups of negotiators from the Alliance of the Small Island States (AOSIS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to walk out, rejecting the initial amount of $250 billion of climate finance proposed by wealthy countries. 

The rushed “approval” by the COP President was also a major frustration, as it is seen as serving the interests of developed countries. Despite Global South parties expressing their resentment and rejecting the deal, the president only “took note” of it and adopted the outcome without asking for responses from the Plenary. This shows that COP29 blatantly disregards the needs and rights of frontline communities confronting the climate crisis while promoting their business-as-usual agenda. 

We continue to witness the hypocrisy of the Global North, which has self-proclaimed itself as the champion of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius since Dubai COP28. There remains a significant gap between the emissions they have actually reduced and what they are obligated to reduce based on their historical responsibilities. Instead of meeting their commitments, they push developing countries in the Global South to reduce emissions using their own limited resources. Without grant-based climate finance, how can the Global South effectively achieve meaningful emissions reductions?

Article 6: Carbon Market is Not a Climate Finance

COP29, touted as the “Finance COP,” quickly became a “False Solutions COP” when carbon market standards were unexpectedly adopted at its opening—thus prioritising the interests of over 1,700 fossil fuel lobbyists and agribusiness representatives over the needs of frontline communities most affected by the climate crisis. This COP29 really sends a signal of the moral and financial bankruptcy of the climate talks. To counter these distractions, APWLD members, alongside feminists and climate defenders, are exposing so-called solutions—like carbon markets, net-zero pledges, and geoengineering—as false solutions and demand Global North countries to uphold their commitments under the Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC). Moreover, the outcome shows that the Global North is attempting to kill these principles and they do not want to talk about Means of Implementation (MoI), particularly grant-based and public finance.

Along with UN mandate holders, Special Rapporteur on Climate Change and Human Rights and Independent Expert on Foreign Debt, we assert that the carbon market is not climate finance. Instead, climate finance is a form of reparation that should be delivered as grants, not loans, to acknowledge their historical responsibility for the systemic exploitation that fuels the climate crisis.

Besides the spotlight on carbon market-related Articles 6.2 and 6.4 of the Paris Agreement, the dominance of corporate interests extended to other thematic issues, such as food and agriculture, just transition and overarching conversations on climate finance, specifically the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG).

Food and Agriculture: Corporate Greed Hijacks Agri-Food Systems Negotiations

Overall, food and agriculture negotiations were hijacked by food sector lobbyists pushing profit-driven agendas that sidelined small-scale and women farmers. 204 food sector lobbyists crowded the negotiations with nearly 40% with party badges that gave them privilege to access and influence the diplomatic negotiations. As a consequence, the Baku Harmoniya Climate Initiative for Farmers was launched by the COP29 presidency and the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), with backing from the World Bank. This initiative’s focus is to promote corporate investments in agriculture at the expense of people and the planet. As a result, the concerns of small-scale farmers—particularly women farmers—are systematically excluded from the negotiations. In response, our members, alongside allies, are exposing corporate greed while advocating for women- and community-led initiatives that challenge profit-driven agendas and promote equitable, sustainable solutions.

Just and Equitable Transition: Addressing Root Causes

With the latest text for Just Transition provided as of 22 November 2024, parties did not have adequate time to negotiate and build a consensus. This puts G77 in a difficult position where they might only settle with procedural decisions, without any substantive changes. This risks undermining the significant progress that has been made over the past two years in the Just Transition Work Program which leaves us with no concrete commitment to deliver by SB62 and COP30. For instance, there was no discussion on the just, orderly and equitable transition and means of implementation with no finance allocation on just transition. Moreover, based on the countries’ commitment on net zero by 2050, over 50% of the carbon budget has already been exhausted, raising the question of how we can limit temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. This clearly shows that the burden of just and equitable transition is shifted to the Global South which is completely undermining the principle of equity and CBDR. Moreover, it also fails to address the systemic root causes of climate change without which just and equitable transition is not possible.

Climate Finance: Bad Deal on New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG)

Developing countries have called for $1.3 trillion annually to address mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage, with studies showing $5 trillion is needed to meet Global South priorities. However, instead of committing to new and additional, predictable and adequate public finance, the final NCQG text vaguely references “developed countries taking the lead” in mobilising $300 billion finance annually, only to be reached by 2035. This approval kills the hope of scaling up collective climate action. Besides, it uses the multilateral development banks as a key vehicle for climate finance. This oddly invites the multilateral development bank (MDB)’s shareholders in mobilising climate finance, which is a way to shift their financial obligation and shifting burden of climate action onto developing countries. This risks climate debt while prioritising profit-driven mechanisms like carbon markets and debt-for-climate swaps that benefit corporations over communities. Of particular concern, the MDBs are not parties; they are observers under the UNFCCC. As per CBDR-RC, the Global North can be held accountable for their obligations but holding the MDBs accountable for climate finance becomes a challenge. APWLD members join Global South’s demands for trillions in climate finance, alongside measures to redirect military spending, tax corporations and the wealthy, and regulate illicit financial flows. Their stance is firm: no deal is better than a bad deal, as it fails to deliver climate finance to real, community-led climate solutions.

***

Reflections on COP29 Outcomes

Read a compilation of what APWLD members think about the conference and their experiences from it.

Wanun Permpibul, Climate Watch Thailand (Thailand): “COP29 has delivered an unjust and outrageous deal. The process was a sham, forcing decisions despite strong objections. Driven by profit and power, the Global North denies the climate finance urgently needed by those most affected, while pushing carbon markets and false solutions as climate finance. This reflects moral and financial bankruptcy, benefiting corporations, keeping fossil fuels alive, and ignoring the urgent need for grant-based finance—underscored by the overwhelming presence of fossil fuel and agribusiness lobbyists at this COP. It perpetuates climate colonialism and is yet another escape from their historical responsibility, climate debt, and reparations owed to the Global South, undermining human rights and gender commitments while delaying real climate action.”

Zubaidah, Beranda Perempuan (Indonesia): “COP29 has become a marketplace for rich countries to profit from the climate crisis while continuing to produce their emission. COP29 has given space for fossil fuel lobbyists but no space to support the resilience of climate-affected people and women. There is no commitment from rich countries to respond to loss and damage.”

Ana Celestial, Kalikasan People’s Network for the Environment (Philippines): “As typhoons brought floods to my home country the Philippines, COP29 in Baku was similarly inundated with false promises. Powerful nations and fossil fuel companies used COP29 to reinforce their control over the world, creating new avenues for exploitation and superprofits through hastily arranged agreements on “carbon markets,” while blatantly turning their backs on their historical and moral responsibility to provide reparations and compensation to small nations suffering from the intensifying climate crisis.”

Varuntorn Kaewtankam, Sustainable Development Foundation (Thailand): “On the first day of COP29, the president announced that he would move forward with the carbon market mechanism to solve climate change. This shows that they do not recognise the human rights impacts of carbon market projects, especially for those who depend on forests and coastal areas, women, and indigenous people. It gives polluters the green light to continue emitting greenhouse gases.”

Martha Magdalena Patty, Perempuan Aman Maluku (Indonesia): “COP29 was my first experience participating in it, seeing and hearing directly every process that occurred where there was no real solution to the climate crisis that occurred, but there was something good that I could get that the struggle that was carried out was not alone, all in solidarity, and the amazing thing was that those who moved and organised to voice all the demands were the extraordinary women. We hope for good outcomes for those of us working at the grassroots level to prepare a strategy back home.”

Arnold Padilla, Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific (PANAP) (Philippines): “The 2030 deadline is looming, yet it appears there is no urgency among the governments of the Global North—the rich countries and their large corporations, which are the primary culprits of the crisis—to scale up their commitments to real climate actions. The demand for more than a trillion US dollars per year in public climate finance has been met with offers as low as 350 billion US dollars, a further injustice to the billions of victims of the climate crisis. This is unacceptable.”

Chathurika Sewwandi, Vikalpani Women’s Federation and Law and Society Trust (Sri Lanka): “Women farmers in the Global South face numerous challenges stemming from the impacts of climate change. Their vulnerabilities have been exacerbated by patriarchal systems and structural barriers that limit access to land, natural resources, social security while perpetuating gender-based discrimination. Despite this, they have limited access to compensation and agro-based insurance. However, their concerns are largely excluded from COP negotiations, which instead focus on solutions proposed by the perpetrators of the climate crisis.”

Virginia Talens, Kalikasan People’s Network for the Environment (Philippines): “We demand solutions for our disrupted food production and food insecurity, justice and reparation for agricultural loss and damage. Freedom from corporate conspiracy against food sovereignty and land rights are also essential for true climate justice.”

Lia Mai Torres, Kalikasan People’s Network for the Environment (Philippines): “Human rights are non-negotiable. Lives of environmental human rights defenders should not be a matter to be negotiated. Climate imperialists have not only destroyed homes and livelihoods but have taken lives of people who hold the real solutions to the climate crisis. As COP29 is closing, we see that human rights has not been integrated in the outcome documents. There is no climate justice without human rights.”

Fariha Jesmin, Badabon Sangho (Bangladesh): “As a Bangladeshi, I’ve witnessed how increasing salinity, cyclones, increasing temperature and floods damage our communities, despite our minimal contribution to global emissions. I am deeply concerned by the promotion of so-called ‘false solutions’ to the climate crisis. At COP29, my understanding of these false solutions is clear: wealthy nations must meet their climate funding commitments. It is more than just making promises; it is about ensuring immediate access to funding for adaptation, loss, and damage. Bangladesh is already spending billions of dollars from its own budget to defend its citizens, but this is not sustainable. We need a climate finance structure that is accountable, transparent, and accessible to vulnerable nations while also supporting grassroots resilience activities.”

Kalyani Raj, All India Women’s Conference (India): “Another COP with not much achieved—be it finance, gender language, stocktaking or market mechanism. The expected urgency for action, political will and concern for those who are actually suffering are completely missing. We expected tangible action plans whereas we went back with debates over NCQG, unset global targets, unfulfilled promises and despair. The shrinking space for participation for CSOs, grass-root level organisations and regional actors is another area of huge concern. The same vibes filtering down to national level is unacceptable because the developing countries can’t afford to wait any long. Record breaking heat waves, unseasonal rains and steep climate variations are impacting the life of the poor the worst. When are we going to move from empty words to action?”

Triana Wardani, Serikat Perempuan Indonesia (SERUNI) (Indonesia): “Under the sky of imperialism, economic progress and political power always conflict with natural safety and progress in an antagonistic and irreconcilable manner. As long as colonial and semi-colonial relations are maintained in relations between nations, the gap in industrial progress is maintained by the state and imperialist powers, damage to forests and land due to the production of agricultural and mining extractive commodities relying on underdeveloped productive forces in Indonesia is inevitable. People who suffer from fatal environmental damage, carbon overflows and boiling in the earth’s high temperatures must rise up and become the determining force to end the climate crisis.”

Bolormaa Mashlai, Women Leader Foundation (Mongolia): “At COP29, I could visibly see the impact of excluding civil society organisations (CSOs) out of negotiation rooms. It feels as though we are talking to ourselves. But at the same time, I can see how important it is for CSOs to make their demands so that they can influence government outlook and perspective on key issues such as gender-just climate policies.”

***

COP29 reminds us that climate finance needs to be urgently paid by the Global North as part of their commitment to the CBDR-RC principle. The outcome should not be profit-driven schemes that sideline grassroots initiatives. Instead, it should centre the experiences and wisdom of those on the frontlines of climate impacts, and foster a solidarity that champions real solutions rooted in climate justice.